“Most people” and science

Via The Daily Dish, here is Francis Collins, the head of NIH, on science, religion, and whose voices get heard:

Part of the problem is, I think the extremists have occupied the stage. Those voices are the ones we hear. I think most people are actually kind of comfortable with the idea that science is a reliable way to learn about nature, but it’s not the whole story and there’s a place also for religion, for faith, for theology, for philosophy. But that harmony perspective does not get as much attention, nobody’s as interested in harmony as they are in conflict, I’m afraid.

We would be lucky if what he was saying was true, but I do not think it is. For instance, here is a recent summary of American’s beliefs about evolution published in the journal Science:

Over the past 20 years, the percentage of U.S. adults accepting the idea of evolution has declined from 45% to 40% and the percentage of adults overtly rejecting evolution declined from 48% to 39%. The percentage of adults who were not sure about evolution increased from 7% in 1985 to 21% in 2005. After 20 years of public debate, the public appears to be divided evenly in terms of accepting or rejecting evolution, with about one in five adults still undecided or unaware of the issue. This pattern is consistent with a number of sporadic national newspaper surveys reported in recent years.

I would not describe a public that is evenly divided between accepting and rejecting evolution as “kind of comfortable with the idea that science is a reliable way to learn about nature”. It is not extremists who are occupying the stage; any individual expressing doubt or rejection of evolution is unfortunately well within the mainstream of American beliefs.

UPDATE: I’m adding a table from the linked report that clearly illustrates America’s problem with evolution relative to the rest of the world.

Scientists don’t know how to tell stories and people love stories. The creationism story from the Bible is much more appealing and easier to swallow than being told humans evolved from apes. We didn’t evolve from apes, though. My grandmother wasn’t a monkey but that’s what the people winning this debate are accusing scientists are saying. The ones with the story are going to win; until scientists learn how to advertise and sell theory better, they’re going to lose.

Think about it. If a scientist told you he figured he mastered electricity and energy waves and can make a man appear in a box and tell you the news, you’d be cautious to believe him. He can explain the theories all he wants. He can’t show that man in the box showing the news footage of your grandmother turning into a human.

There is a world of possibilities besides these two stories, some of which have equal appeal for anyone who has thought deeply about the issue. Setting this, or any other aspect of knowledge up as a contest where the “winner” gets to teach the children, is what is truly stupid.

There is no false dichotomy in the real world but that’s how it plays out. If you’re going to deny that it’s either predominantly Christian belief in the creation myth that’s keeping most Americans confused or that scientists have failed to tell a story to sell their theory, you’re using your own dissociative facts.

Edwin,
I may have sounded a bit harsh because I believe children need to be able to make a lot more choices in their education than they are presently allowed.
I was raised as a Christian, and if anything, closer to the words of the Bible than to the scientists. It’s just that my interpretation of the Bible has different personal meanings for me, as I suspect it does for everyone. I believe that the ideal – educationally speaking – is to be exposed to as many differing belief systems as possible, not by people who demand a student’s belief but are enthused by what they impart to the student. What I especially appreciated as a young Christian was respect for my own decision making process – not everyone is so lucky.

Don’t be fooled by Collins. He’s not militant about it, but he’s an unabashed intelligent design proponent who believes that the universe was engineered by a loving God, and I quote, to result in “man as a perfect vessel for God’s moral law”.

(Apologize if that’s not the precise video where he says this, it’s been months since I looked at it and haven’t had a chance to review it.)

Short version is that Collins is perfectly happy to attack scientific naturalism, but claim that he’s interested in “harmony”.